SECT. III Of the Composition of History. [590-600]

82. Cicero's rules.

Cicero has given us the whole art of composing
history, in a very short and comprehensive manner. We shall first
transcribe what he says, and then consider the several parts of
it in their proper order. "No one is ignorant (says he), that
the first law in writing history is, not dare to say any thing that
is false; and the next, not to be afraid to speak the truth: that
on the one hand there be no suspicion of affection, nor of prejudice
on the other. These foundations are what all are acquainted with.
But the superstructure consists partly in things, and partly in
the style or language. The former require an order of times, and
descriptions of places. And because in great and memorable events,
we are desirous to know first their causes, then the actions themselves,
and lastly their consequences; the historian should take notice
of the springs or motives that occasioned them; and, in mentioning
the facts themselves, should not only relate what was done or said,
but likewise in what manner; and, in treating upon their consequences,
show if they were the effects of chance, wisdom, or imprudence.
Nor should he only recite the actions of great and eminent persons,
but likewise describe their characters. The style ought to be fluent,
smooth and even, free from that harshness and poignancy which is
usual at the bar". Thus far Cicero. An history written in this
manner, and furnished with all these properties, must needs be very
entertaining, as well as instructive. And perhaps few have come
nearer this plan than Tacitus; though his subject is attended with
this unhappy circumstance, or at least unpleasant one, that it affords
us examples rather of what we ought to avoid than what to imitate.
But it is the business of the historian, as well as of the philosopher,
to represent both virtues and vices in their proper colours; the
latter doing it by precepts, and the former by examples. Their manner
is different; but the end and design of both is, or should be, the
same. And therefore history has not improperly been said by some
to be moral philosophy exemplified in the lives and actions of mankind.

De Orat. Lib. II. c. 15.

We shall reduce these several things mentioned
by Cicero to three heads, Matter, Order, and Style; and treat upon
each of them separately. But as Truth is the basis and foundation
of all history, it will be necessary to consider that in the first
place.

Art. I Of Truth in History.

83. Of historic truth.

Truth is, as it were, the very life and
soul of history, by which it is distinguished from fable or romance.
An historian therefore ought not only to be a man of probity, but
void of all passion or bias. He must have the steadiness of a philosopher,
joined with the vivacity of a poet or orator. Without the former,
he will be insensibly swayed by some passion to give a false colouring
to the actions or characters he describes, as favour or dislike
to parties or persons affect his mind. Whereas he ought to be of
no party, nor to have either friend or foe while writing; but to
preserve himself in a state of the greatest indifference to all,
that he may judge of things as they really are in their own nature,
and not as connected with this or that person or party. And with
this firm and sedate temper, a lively imagination is requisite;
without which his descriptions will be flat and cold, not will he
be able to convey his readers a just and adequate idea of great
and generous actions. Nor is the assistance of a good judgement
less necessary than any of the former qualities, to direct him what
is proper to be said and what to be omitted, and to treat every
thing in a manner suitable to its importance. And since these are
the qualifications necessary for an historian, it may perhaps seem
the less strange that we have so few good histories.

But historical truth consists of two parts;
one is, not to say any thing we now to be false: though it is not
sufficient to excuse an historian in relating a falsehood that he
did not know it was so when he wrote it, unless he first used all
the means in his power to inform himself of the truth; for then,
undoubtedly, an invincible error is as unpardonable in history as
in morality. But the generality of writers in this kind content
themselves with taking their accounts from hearsays, or transcribing
them from others; without duly weighing the evidence on which they
are founded, or giving themselves the trouble of a strict inquiry.
Few will use the diligence necessary to inform themselves of the
certainty of what they undertake to relate. And as the want of this
greatly abates the pleasure of reading such writers, while persons
read with diffidence; so nothing more recommends an historian than
such industry. Thus we are informed of Thucydides, that when he
wrote his history of the Peloponnesian war, he did not satisfy himself
with the best accounts he could get from his countrymen, the Athenians,
fearing they might be partial in their own cause; but spared no
expence to inform himself how the same facts were related by their
enemies the Lacedemonians; that by comparing the relations of both
parties, he might better judge of the truth. And Polybius took greater
pains than he, in order to write his history of the Roman affairs;
for he travelled into Africa, Spain, Gaul, and other parts of the
world, [591] that by viewing the several scenes of action,
and informing himself from the inhabitants, he might come at a greater
certainty of the facts, and represent them in a juster light. But
as an historian ought not to assert what he knows to be false; so
he should likewise be cautious in relating things which are doubtful,
and acquaint his readers with the evidence he goes upon in such
facts, from whence they may be able to judge how far it is proper
to credit them. So Herodotus tells us what things he saw himself
in his travels, and what he heard from the information of the Egyptian
priests and others with whom he conversed. And Curtius, in the life
of Alexander, speaking of the affairs of India, ingenuously confesses,
that he wrote more than he fully believed. "For (says he) I
neither dare to affirm positively what I doubt of, nor can I think
it proper to omit what I have been told." By such a conduct
the author secures his credit, whether the things prove really true
or false; and gives room for further inquiry, without imposing on
his readers.

The other branch of historical truth is,
not to omit any thing that is true, and necessary to set the matter
treated of in a clear and full light. In the actions of past ages
or distant countries, wherein the writer has no personal concern,
he can have no great inducement to break in upon this rule. But
where interest or party is engaged, it requires no small candour,
as well as firmness of mind, constantly to adhere to it. Affection
to some, aversion to others, fear of disobliging friends or those
in power, will often interpose and try his integrity. Besides, an
omission is less obvious to censure than a false assertion: for
the one may be easily ascribed to ignorance or forgetfulness; whereas
the other will, if discovered, be commonly looked upon as design.
He therefore who, in such circumstances, from a generous love to
truth, is superior to all motives to betray or stifle it, justly
deserves the character of a brave as well as honest man. What Polybius
says upon this head is very well worth remarking: "A good man
ought to love his friends and his country, and to have a like disposition
with them, both towards their friends and enemies. But when he takes
upon him the character of an historian, they must all be forgot.
He must often speak well of his enemies, and commend them when their
actions deserve it; and sometimes blame, and even upbraid his greatest
friends, when their conduct makes it necessary. Nor must he forbear
sometimes to reprove, and at other times to commend, the same persons;
since all are liable to mistake in their management, and there are
scarce any persons who are always in the wrong. Therefore, in history,
all personal considerations should be laid aside, and regard had
only their actions."

What a different view of mankind and their
actions should we have were these rules observed by all historians?
Integrity is undoubtedly the principal qualification of an historian;
when we can depend upon this, other imperfections are more easily
passed over. Suetonius is said to have written the lives of the
first twelve Roman emperors with the same freedom wherewith they
themselves lived. What better character can be given of a writer?
The same ingenious temper appears in the two Grecian historians
above mentioned, Thucydides and Polybius: the former of whom, though
banished by his countrymen the Athenians, yet expresses no marks
of resentment in his history, either against them in general, or
even against the chief authors of it, when he has occasion to mention
them; and the latter does not forbear censuring what he thought
blameable in his nearest relations and friends. But it is often
no early matter to know whether an historian speaks truth or not,
and keeps up to the several characters here mentioned; tho
it seems reasonable, upon the common principles of justice due to
all mankind, to credit him where no marks of partiality or prejudice
appear in his writings. Sometimes, indeed, a judgement may in a
good measure be formed of the veracity of an author from his manner
of expressing himself. A certain candour and frankness, that is
always uniform and consistent with itself, runs through their writings
who have nothing in view but truth, which may be justly esteemed
as a very good evidence of their sincerity. Whereas those who have
partial designs to answer are commonly more close and covert; and
if at other times they assume an air of openness and freedom, yet
this is not constant and even, but soon followed again with the
appearance of some bias and reserve; for it is very difficult to
act a part long together without lying open to a discovery. And
therefore, though craft and design is exceeding various, and, Proteus-like,
assumes very different shapes, there are certain characters by which
it may often be perceived and detected. Thus, where things are uncertain
by reason of their being reported various ways, it is partiality
in an historian to give into the most unfavourable account, where
others are as well known and equally credible. Again, it is a proof
of the same bad temper, when the facts themselves are certain and
evident, but the design and motives of the concerned in them are
unknown and obscure, to assign some ill principle, such as avarice,
ambition, malice, interest, or any other vicious habit, as the cause
of them. This conduct is not only unjust to the persons whose actions
they relate; but hurtful to mankind in general, by endeavouring
to destroy the principal motive to virtue, which springs form example.
Others, who affect to be more covert, content themselves with suspicious
and sly insinuations; and then endeavour to come off, by intimating
their unwillingness to believe them, tho they would have their
readers do so. And to mention no more, there are others, who, when
they have loaded persons with unjust calumnies and reflections,
will allow them some slight commendations, to make what they have
said before look more credible, and themselves less partial. But
the honest and faithful historian contemns all such low and mean
arts; he considers things as they are in themselves, and relates
them as he finds them, without prejudice or affection.

Art. II The Subject of Argument of
History.

84. Subject of history.

The subject in general is facts,
together with such things as are either connected with them, or
may at least be requisite to set them in a just and proper light.
But although the principal design of history be to acquaint us with
facts, yet all facts do not merit the regard of an historian; but
such only as may be thought of use and service for the conduct of
human life. Nor is it allowable for him, like the poet, to form
the plan and scheme of his work as he pleases. His business [592]
is to report things as he finds them, without any colouring of disguise
to make them more pleasing and palatable to his reader, which would
be to convert his history into a novel. Indeed, some histories afford
more pleasure and entertainment than others, from the nature of
the things of which they consist; and it may be esteemed the happiness
of an historian to meet with such a subject, but it is not his fault
if it be otherwise. Thus Herodotus begins his history with showing,
that the barbarians gave the first occasion to the wars between
them and the Greeks, and ends it with an account of the punishment
which, after some ages, they suffered from the Greeks on that account.
Such a relation must not only be very agreeable to his countrymen
the Grecians, for whose sakes it was written; but likewise very
instructive, by informing them of the justice of Providence in punishing
public injuries in this world, wherein societies, as such, are only
capable of punishment. And therefore those examples might be of
use to caution them against the like practices. On the contrary,
Thucydides begins his history with the unhappy state of his countrymen
the Athenians; and in the course of it plainly intimates, that they
were the cause of the calamitous war between them and the Lacedemonians.
Whereas, had he been more inclined to please and gratify his countrymen
than to write the truth, he might have set things in such a light
as to have made their enemies appear the aggressors. But he scorned
to court applause at the expence of truth and justice, and has set
a noble example of integrity to all future historians. But as all
actions do not merit a place in history, it requires no small judgement
in an historian to select such only as are proper. Cicero observes
very justly, that history "is conversant in great and memorable
actions". For this reason, an historian should always keep
posterity in view; and relate nothing which may not, upon some account
or other, be worth the notice of after-ages. To descend to trivial
and minute matters, such as frequently occur in the common affairs
of life, is below the dignity of history. Such writers ought rather
to be deemed journalists than historians, who have no view or expectation
that their works should survive them. But the skilful historian
is fired with a more noble ambition. His design is to acquaint succeeding
ages with what remarkable occurrences happened in the world before
them; to do justice to the memory of great and virtuous men; and
at the same time to perpetuate his own. Pliny the younger has some
fine reflections upon this head, in a letter to a friend. "You
advise me (says he) to write an history; and not you only, for many
others have done the same, and I am myself inclined to it. Not that
I believe myself qualified for it, which would be rash to think
till I have tried it; but because I esteem it a generous action
not to suffer those to be forgotten whose memory thought to be eternised;
and to perpetuate the names of others, together with ones
own. For there is nothing I am so desirous or ambitious of, as to
be remembered hereafter; which is a thing worthy of a man, especially
of one who, conscious of no guilt, has nothing to fear from posterity.
Therefore I am thinking day and night by what means, as Virgil says,

____ my name
To raise aloft.

That would suffice me; for it is above my wish to add with him,

Lib. V. cp. 8.

_____and wing my flight to fame.
But oh!

However, this is enough, and what history
alone seems to promise". This was Plinys opinion with
regard to the use or advantage of history; the subjects of which
are generally matters of weight and importance. And therefore, when
a prudent historian thinks it convenient to take notice of things
in themselves less considerable, he either does it with brevity,
or for some apparent reason, or accounts for it by some just apology.
So Dion Cassius, when he has mentioned some things of less moment
in the life of Commodus (as indeed that emperors life was
chiefly filled up with cruelty and folly), makes this excuse for
himself: "I would not have it thought that I descend below
the gravity of history in writing these things: for, as they were
the actions of an emperor, and I was present and saw them all, and
both heard and conversed with him, I did not think it proper to
omit them." He seems to think those actions, when performed
by an emperor, might be worth recording, which, if done by a person
of inferior rank, would scarce have deserved notice. Nor does he
appear to have judged amiss, if we consider what an influence the
conduct and behaviour of princes, even in the common circumstances
of life, have upon all beneath them; which may sometimes render
them not unworthy the regard of an historian, as examples either
for imitation or caution.

But although facts in general are the
proper subject of history, yet they may be differently considered,
with regard to the extent of them, as they relate either to particular
persons or communities of men. And from this consideration history
has been distinguished into three sorts, viz. biography, particular
and general history. The lives of single persons is called biography.
By particular history is meant that of particular states,
whether for a shorter or longer space of time. And general history
contains an account of several states existing together in the same
period of time.

85. Different kinds of history.

1. The subjects of biography are
the lives either of public or private persons; for many useful observations
in the conduct of human life may be made from just accounts of those
who have been eminent and beneficial of the world in either station.
Nay, the lives of vicious persons are not without their use, as
warnings to others, by observing the fatal consequences which sooner
or later generally follow such practices. But for those who exposed
their lives, or otherwise employed their time and labour, for the
service of their fellow-creatures, it seems but a just debt that
their memories should be perpetuated after them, and posterity acquainted
with their benefactors. The expectation of this was no small incentive
to virtue in the Pagan world. And perhaps every one, upon due reflection,
will be convinced how natural this passion is to mankind in general.
And it was for this reason, probably, that Virgil places not only
his heroes, but also the inventors of useful arts and sciences,
and other persons of distinguished merit, in the Elysian Fields,
where he thus describes them:

Here patriots live, who, for their countrys good,
In fighting fields were prodigal of blood; [593]Priests of unblemishd lives here make abode,
And poets worthy their inspiring god;
And searching wits of more mechanic parts,
Who gracd their age with new invented arts;
Those who to worth their bounty did extend,
And those who knew that bounty to commend:
The heads of these with holy fillets bound,
And all their temples were with garlands crownd.

Æneid, lvi, v. 66

In the lives of the public persons, their
public characters are principally, but not solely, to be regarded.
The world is inquisitive to know the conduct of princes and other
great men, as well in private as public. And both, as has been said,
may be of service, considering the influence of their examples.
But to do over-inquisitive in searching into the weaknesses and
infirmities of the greatest or best of men, is, to say no more of
it, but a needless curiosity. In the writers of this kind, Plutarch
is justly allowed to excel.

But it has been a matter of dispute among
the learned, whether any one ought to write is own history. It may
be pleaded in favour of this, that no one can be so much master
of the subject as the person himself: and besides, there are many
instances, both ancient and modern, to left such a conduct. But
on the other hand it must be owned, that there are many inconveniences
which attend it; some of which are mentioned by Cicero. "If
(says he) there is any thing commendable, persons are obliged to
speak of themselves with greater modesty, and to omit what is blameable
in others. Besides, what is said is not so soon credited, and has
less authority; and after all, many will not stick to censure it."
And Pliny says very well to the same purpose, "Those who proclaim
their own virtues, are thought not so much to proclaim them because
they did them, as to have done them that they might proclaim them.
So that which would have appeared great if told by another, is lost
when related by the party himself. For when men cannot deny the
fact, they reflect upon the vanity of its author. Wherefore, if
you do things not worth mentioning, the actions themselves are blamed;
and if the things you do are commendable, you are blamed for mentioning
them." These reflections will be generally allowed to be very
just; and yet considering how natural it is for a man to love themselves,
and to be inclined in their own favour, it seems to be a very difficult
task for any one to write an impartial history of his own actions.
There is scarce any treatise of this kind that is more celebrated
than Cæsar's Commentaries. And yet Suetonius tells us, that "Asinius
Pollio (who lived at that time) thought they were neither written
with due care nor integrity: that Cæsar was often too credulous
in his accounts of what was done by other persons; and misrepresented
his own actions, either designedly, or through forgetfulness: and
therefore he supposes he would have revised and corrected them."
However, at some times it may doubtless be justifiable for a person
to be his own historian. Plutarch mentions two cases wherein it
is allowable for a man to commend himself, and be the publisher
of his own merits. These are, when the doing of it may be of considerable
advantage either to himself or others. It is indeed less invidious
for other persons to undertake the province. And especially for
a person to talk or write of his own virtues, at a time when vice
and a general corruption of manners prevails, let what he says be
ever so true, it will be apt at least to be taken as a reflection
upon others. "Anciently (says Tacitus), many wrote their own
lives, rather as a testimony of their conduct, than from pride."
Upon which he makes this judicious remark: "That the more virtue
abounds, the sooner the reports of it are credit." But the
ancient writers had a way of taking off the readers attention
from themselves in recording their own actions, and so rendering
what they said less invidious: and that was, by speaking of themselves
in the third person, and not in the first. Thus Cæsar never says,
"I did," or, "I said, this or that;"
but always, "Cæsar did, or said, so and so." Why
the moderns have not more chosen to follow them in this, we know
not since it seems less exceptionable.

Ad. Fam. Lib. V. ep. 12.

Lib. VIII ep. 1.

2. In a continued history of particular
states, some account may be given of their original and founders;
the nature of their soil, and situation; what advantages they have
for their support or improvement, either within themselves, by foreign
traffic, or conquests; with the form of their government. Then notice
should be taken of the methods by which they increased in wealth
or power, till they gradually advanced to their highest pitch of
grandeur; whether by their virtue, the goodness of their constitution,
trade, industry, wars, or whatever cause. After this the reasons
of their declensions should be shown; what were the vices that principally
occasioned it (for that is generally the case); whether avarice,
ambition, luxury, discord, cruelty, or several of these in conjunction.
And lastly, where that has been their unhappy faith, how they received
their final ruin and subversion. Most of these things Livy had in
view when he wrote his history of the Roman state, as he acquaints
his readers in the preface. "The accounts (says he) of what
happened either before or while the city was building, consisting
rather of poetical fables than any certain records of facts, I shall
neither assert nor confute them. Let antiquity be allowed to make
the origin of their cities more venerable, by uniting things human
and divine. But if any nation may be suffered to fetch their origin
from the gods, such is the military glory of the Romans, that when
they represent Mars as the father of their founder, other nations
may has easily acquiesce in this as they do in their government.
But I lay no great stress upon these things, and others of the like
nature, whatever may be thought of them. What I am desirous every
one should carefully attend to, are our lives and manners: by what
men, and what arts, civil and military, the empire was both acquired
and enlarged: then let him observe, how our manners gradually declined
with our discipline; afterwards grew worse and worse; and at length
so far degenerated, that at present we can neither bear with our
vices nor suffer them to be remedied. This is the chief benefit
and advantage to be reaped from history, to fetch instruction from
eminent examples of both kinds; in order to imitate the one, which
will be of use both to yourself and your country, and avoid the
other, which are equally base in their rise and event." Thus
far Livy. And [594] how well he has executed this design
must be acknowledged by all who will be at the pains to peruse his
work.

3. But as a particular history consists
in a number of facts relating to the same state, suitably connected
and laid together in a proper series; so a general history
is made up of several particular histories, whose separate transactions
within the same period of time, or part of it, should be so distinctly
related as to cause no confusion. Such was the history of Diodorus
Siculus, which contained an account of most of the eminent states
and kingdoms in the world, though far the greatest part of it is
now unhappily lost. Of the same nature is the history of Herodotus,
though not so extensive; to whom we are especially indebted for
the Persian affairs. And to this kind may likewise be referred Justins
history, though it be only the epitome of a larger work written
by another hand. The rules proper for conducting such histories
are much the same as those above mentioned concerning particular
histories; excepting what relates to the order, of which
we shall have occasion to speak hereafter.

But the histories both of particular states
and those which are more general frequently contain only the affairs
of some short period of time. Thus the history of Peloponnesian
war,written by Thucydides, comprises only what was done
in the first twenty years of that war, which lasted seven yearslonger than his account reaches; though indeed the reason of
that might be, because Thucydides died before the war was finished,
otherwise he would very probably have continued his history to the
conclusion of it. But the history of the war between the Romans
and king Jugurtha in Africa, given us by Sallust, as also Cæsars
histories of the Gallic and civil wars, are all confined within
a much less number of years than that of Thucydides. Nay, sometimes
one single transaction is thought sufficient to furnish out an history.
Such was the conspiracy of Catiline to subvert the Roman state,
written likewise by Sallust. As to more general histories, Xenophons
history of Greece may be esteemed as such; which in order of time
succeeds that of Thucydides, and contains the affairs of forty-eight
years. And Polybius called his a general history; which,
though it principally contained the Roman affairs, yet took in the
most remarkable transactions of several other states, for the space
of fifty-three years: though it has met with the same hard fate
as that of Diodorus Siculus, so that only the first five books out
of forty, of which it consisted at first, now remain entire. And
to mention no more, the celebrated history of Thuanus is another
instance of this sort, in which the principal transactions of Europe
for about 60 years, chiefly in the 16th century, are described with
that judgement and fidelity, and in a manner so accurate and beautiful,
that he has been thought scarcely inferior to any of the ancient
historians. Now, in such histories as these, to go farther back
than is necessary to set the subject in a just light, seems as improper
as it is unnecessary.

The general subject or argument of history,
in its several branches, may be reduced to these four heads; narration,
reflections, speeches, and digressions.

86. Of narration.

I. By narration is meant a description
of facts or actions, with such things as are necessarily connected
with them; namely, persons, time, place, design, and event.

As to actions themselves, it is
the business of the historian to acquaint his readers with the manner
in which they were performed; what measures were concerted on all
sides, and how they were conducted, whether with vigilance, courage,
prudence, and caution, or the contrary, according to the nature
of the action; as likewise, if any unforeseen accidents fell out,
by which the designed measures were either promoted or broken. All
actions may be referred to two sorts, military and civil. And as
war arises from injustice and injuries received on one side or the
other, it is fit the reader should be informed who were the aggressors.
For though war is never to be desired, yet it is sometimes necessary.
In the description of battles, regard should be had equally to both
parties; the number of forces, conduct of the generals, in what
manner they engaged, what turns and chances happened in the engagement,
either from accidents, courage, or stratagem, and how it issued.
The like circumstances should all be observed in sieges and other
actions. But the most agreeable scene of history arises from a state
of peace. Here the writer acquaints us with the constitution of
states, the nature of their laws, the manners and customs of the
inhabitants, the advantages of concord and unanimity, with the disadvantages
of contention and discord; the invention of arts and sciences, in
what manner they were improved and cultivated, and by whom; with
many other things, both pleasant and profitable in the conduct of
life.
As to persons, the characters of all those should be described
who act any considerable part in an history. This excites the curiosity
of the reader, and makes him more attentive to what is said of them;
as every one is more inquisitive to hear what relates to others,
in proportion to his knowledge of them. And it will likewise be
of use to observe, how directions agree with their characters, and
what were the effects of their different qualifications and abilities.

The circumstances of time and place are carefully
to be regarded by an historian, without which his accounts of facts
will be frequently very lame and imperfect. And therefore chronology
and geography seem not improperly to have been called the two
eyes of history. Besides, they very much assist the memory:
for it is much easier to remember any thing said to be done at such
a time, and in such a place, than if only related in general; nay,
the remembrance of these often recalls those things to mind which
otherwise had been obliterated. By time is meant not only the year
of any particular era or period; but likewise the season, as summer
or winter; and age of particular persons. For it is oftentimes from
hence that we are principally enabled to make a just estimate of
facts. Thus Cicero commends Pompey for undertaking and finishing
the Piratic war at a season of the year when other generals would
not have thought it safe to venture out at sea. This double danger,
as well from the weather as the enemy, considering the necessity
of the case, heightens the glory of the action; since to have done
the same thing in summer would not have been an equal proof of the
courage [595] and intrepidity of the general. And there is
nothing more surprising in the conquests of Alexander than that
he should subdue so large a part of the world by the time he was
little more than 30 years old; an age at which few other generals
have been much distinguished. Had we not known this, a considerable
part of his character had been lost.

Pro. Leg. Mon. c. 12.

The like advantages arise from the other
circumstances of place. And therefore in marches, battles, and other
military actions, the historian should take notice of the nature
of the country, the passes, rivers, distances of places, situation
of the armies, and strength of the towns either by nature or art;
from which the reader may the better form a judgement of the difficulties
and greatness of any enterprise. Cæsar is generally very particular
in these things, and seems to have thought it highly requisite in
order to give is readers a just idea of his actions. The description
of countries, cities, and rivers, are likewise both useful and pleasant;
and help us to judge of the probability of what is related concerning
the temper and genius of the inhabitants, their arts, traffic, wealth,
power, or whatever else is remarkable among them.

But an accurate historian goes yet further,
and considers the causes of actions, and what were the designs
and views of those persons who were principally concerned in them.
Some, as Polybius has well observed, are apt to confound the beginnings
of actions with their springs and causes, which ought to be carefully
separated. For the causes are often very remote, and to be looked
for at a considerable distance from the actions themselves. Thus,
as he tells us, some have represented Hannibals besieging
Saguntum in Spain, and passing the Ebro, contrary to a former agreement
between the Romans and Carthaginians, as causes of the second Punic
war. But these were only the beginnings of it. The true causes were
the jealousies and fears of the Carthaginians from the growing power
of the Romans; and Hannibals inveterate hatred to them, with
which he had been impressed from his infancy. For his father, whom
he succeeded in the command of the Carthaginian army, had obliged
him, when but nine years old, to take a most solemn oath upon an
altar never to be reconciled to the Romans: and therefore he was
no sooner at the head of the army, than he took the first opportunity
to break with them. Again, the true springs and causes of actions
are to be distinguished from such as are only feigned and pretended.
For generally the worse designs men have in view, the more solicitous
they are to cover them with specious pretences. It is the historian's
business, therefore, to lay open and expose to view these arts of
politicians. So, as the same judicious historian remarks, we are
not to imagine Alexanders carrying over his army into Asia
to have been the cause of the war between him and the Persians.
That had its being long before. The Grecians had formerly two armies
in Asia, one under Xenophon and the other commanded by Agesilaus.
Now the Asiatics did not venture to oppose or molest either of these
armies in their march. This made King Philip, Alexanders father,
who was an ambitious prince, and aspired after universal monarchy,
think it might be a practicable thing to make a conquest of Asia.
Accordingly, he kept it in his view, and made preparations for it;
but did not live to execute it. That was left for his son. But as
King Philip could not have done this without first bringing the
other states of Greece into it, his pretence to them was only to
avenge the injuries they had all suffered from the Persians; though
the real design was an universal government, both over them and
the Persians, as appeared afterwards by the event. But in order
to our being well assured of a persons real designs, and to
make the accounts of them more credible, it is proper we should
be acquainted with his disposition, manners, way of life, virtues,
or vices; that by comparing his actions with these, we may see how
far they agree and suit each other. For this reason Sallust is so
particular in his descriptions of Catiline, and Livy of Hannibal;
by which it appears credible that the one was capable of entering
into such a conspiracy against his country, and the other of performing
such great things as are related concerning him. But if the causes
of actions lie in the dark, and unknown, a prudent historian will
not trouble himself or his readers with vain and trifling conjectures,
unless something very probable offers itself.

Lastly, an historian should relate the
issue and event of the actions he describes. This
is undoubtedly the most useful part of history; since the greatest
advantage arising from it is to teach us experience from what has
happened in the world before us. When we learn from the examples
of others the happy effects of wisdom, prudence, integrity, and
other virtues, it naturally excites us to an imitation of them,
and to pursue the same measures in our own conduct. And, on the
contrary, by perceiving the unhappy consequences which have followed
from violence, deceit, rashness, or the like vices, we are deterred
from such practices. But since the wisest and most prudent measures
do not always meat with the desired success, and many cross accidents
may happen to frustrate the best concerted designs; when we meet
with instances of this nature, it prepares us for the like events,
and keeps us from too great a confidence in our own schemes. However,
as this is not commonly the case, but in the ordinary course of
human affairs like causes usually produce like effects: the numerous
examples of the happy consequences of virtue and wisdom recorded
in history are sufficient to determine us in the choice of our measures,
and to encourage us to hope for an answerable success, though we
cannot be certain we shall in no instance meet with a disappointment.
And therefore Polybius very justly observes, that "he who takes
from history the causes, manner, and end of actions, and omits to
take notice whether the event was answerable to the means made use
of, leaves nothing in it but a bare amusement without any benefit
or instructions." These, then, are the several things necessary
to be attended to in historical narrations; but the proper disposition
of them must be left to the skill and produce of the writer.

87. Of reflections.

II. Reflections made by
the writers. Some have condemned these, as having a tendency to
bias the reader; who should be left to draw such conclusions from
the accounts of facts as he sees proper. But since all readers are
not capable of doing this for themselves, what disadvantage is it
for the author to suggest to them such observations as may assist
them to make the best use of what they read? And if the philosopher
is [596] allowed to draw such inferences from his precepts
as he thinks just and proper, why has not the historians an equal
rights to make reflections upon the facts he relates? The reader
is equally at liberty to judge for himself in both cases, without
danger of being prejudiced. And therefore we find, that the best
historians have allowed themselves this liberty. It would be easy
to prove this by a large number of instances, but one or two here
may suffice. When Sallust has given a very distinct account of the
designs of Catiline, and of the whole scheme of the conspiracy,
he concludes it with this reflection: "All that time the empire
of the Romans seems to me to have been in a very unhappy state.
For when they have extended their conquests through the whole world
from east to west, and enjoyed both peace and plenty, which mankind
esteem their greatest happiness; some persons where obstinately
bent upon their own ruin, and that of their country. For notwithstanding
two decrees were published by the senate, not one out of so great
a multitude was prevailed with, by the rewards that were offered,
either to discover the conspiracy or to leave the army of Catiline.
So desperate a disease, and as it were infection, had seized the
minds of most people!" And it is a very handsome observation
that Livy makes upon the ill-conduct of Hannibal in quartering his
army in Capua after the battle of Cannæ; by which means they lost
their martial vigour through luxury and ease. "Those (says
he) who are skilled in military affairs reckoned this a greater
fault in the general, than his not marching his army immediately
to Rome after his victory at Cannæ; for such a delay might have
seemed only to defer the victory, but this ill step deprived him
of the power to gain it." The modesty of the historian in this
passage is worth remarking, in that he does not represent this as
his own private opinion, and by that means undertake to censure
the conduct of so great a general as Hannibal was, but as the sense
of those who where skilled in such affairs. However, an historian
should be brief in such remarks; and consider, that although he
does not exceed his province by applauding virtue, expressing a
just indignation against vice, and interposing his judgement upon
the nature and consequences of the facts he relates; yet there ought
to be a difference between his reflections and the encomiums or
declamations of an orator.

Bell. Catil. c. 37.Lib. XXIII. c. 18.

88. Of speeches.

III. Speeches inserted by historians. These are of two sorts,
oblique and direct. The former are such as the historian recites
in his own person, and not in that of the speaker. Of this kind
is that of Hannibal in Justin; by which he endeavours to persuade
King Antiochus to carry the seat of the war against the Romans into
Italy. It runs thus: "Having desired liberty to speak (he said)
none of the present counsels and designs pleased him; nor did he
approve of Greece for the seat of the world, which might be managed
in Italy to greater advantage: because it was impossible to conquer
the Romans but by their own arms, or to subdue Italy but by its
own forces; since both the nature of those men, and those that war,
was different from all others. In other wars, it was of great importance
to gain an advantage of place or time, to ravage the countries and
plunder the towns; but though you gain some advantage over the Romans,
or defeat them, you must still fight with them when beaten. Wherefore,
should any one engage with them in Italy, it was impossible for
him to conquer them by their own power, strength, and arms, as he
himself had done; but should he attempt it out of Italy, the source
of their power, he would be as much deceived, as if he endeavoured
to alter the course of a river, not at the fountain-head, but where
its streams were largest and deepest. This was his judgement in
private, and what he had offered as his advice, and now repeated
in the presence of his friends; that all might know in what manner
a war ought to be carried on against the Romans, who were invincible
abroad, but might be conquered at home. For they might sooner be
driven out of their city than their empire, and from Italy than
their province; having been taken by the Gauls, and almost subdued
by himself. That he was never defeated till he withdrew out of their
country; but upon his return to Carthage, the fortune of the war
was changed with the place." He seems to intimate by this speech,
that the Romans were like some fierce and impetuous animals, which
are not otherwise to be subdued than by wounding them in some vital
part. In speeches related after this manner, we are not necessarily
to suppose the historian gives us the very words in which they were
at first delivered, but only the sense. But in direct speeches,
the person himself is introduced as addressing his audience; and
therefore the words as well as the sense are to be suited to his
character. Such is the speech of Eumenes, one of Alexanders
captains and successors, made to his soldiers when they had traitorously
bound him in chains, in order to deliver him up to his enemy Antigonus,
as we have it in the same writer. "You see, soldiers (says
he), the habits and ornaments of your general, which have not been
put upon me by mine enemies; that would afford me some comfort:
it is by you, that of a conqueror I am become conquered and of a
general a captive; though you have sworn to be faithful to me four
times within the space of a year. But I omit that, since reflections
do not become persons in calamity. One thing I entreat, that, if
Antigonus must have my life, you would let me die among you. For
it no way concerns him how or where I suffer, and I shall escape
an ignominious death. If you grant me this, I free you from your
oath, with which you have been so often engaged to me. Or, if shame
restrains you from offering violence to me at my request, give me
a sword, and suffer your general to do that for you without the
obligation of an oath which you have sworn to do for you general."

Lib. XXXI. c. 5.

Lib. XIV. c. 4.

But this likewise is a matter in which critics have been divided
in their sentiments; whether any, or what kind, of speeches ought
to be allowed in history. Some have thought all speeches should
be excluded: and the reason given for that opinion is this; that
it breaks the thread of the discourse, and interrupts the reader,
when he is desirous to come to the end of an action, and know how
it issued. This is true, indeed, when speeches are either very long
or too frequent; but otherwise they are not only entertaining, but
likewise instructive. For it is of service to know the springs and
reasons of actions; and these are frequently opened and explained
in the speeches of those by whom they were performed. Others therefore
have not been [597] against all speeches in general, but
only direct ones. And this was the opinion of Trogus Pompeius, as
Justin informs us; though he did not think fit to follow him in
that opinion, when he abridged him, as we have seen already by the
speech of the king Eumenes. The reason offered against direct speeches
is because they are not true; and truth is the foundation of all
history, from which it never ought to depart. Such speeches, therefore,
are said to weaken the credit of the writer; since he who will tell
us that another person spoke such things which he does not know
that he ever did speak, and in such language as he could not use,
may take the same liberty in representing his actions. Thus, for
example, when Livy gives us the speeches of Romulus, the Sabine
women, Bruta, and others, in the first ages of the Roman state,
both the things themselves are imaginary, and the language wholly
disagreeable to the times in which those persons lived. Accordingly
we find, that when several historians relate some particular speech
of the same person, they widely differ both in the subject-matter
and expressions. So the speech of Veturia, by which she dissuaded
her son Coriolanus from besieging Rome when he came against it with
an army of Volscians to avenge the injuries he had received, is
very differently related by Livy, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and
Plutarch. Such fictitious speeches therefore are judged more fit
for poets, who are allowed a greater liberty to indulge their fancy
than historians. And if any direct speeches are to be inserted,
they should be such only as were really spoken by the persons to
whom they are ascribed, where any such have been preserved. These
have been the sentiments of some critics both ancient and modern.
However, there is scarce an ancient historian now extant, either
Greek or Latin, who has not some speeches, more or less, in his
works; and those not only oblique, but also direct. They seem to
have thought it a necessary ornament to their writings: and even
where the true speeches might be come at, have chosen rather to
give them in their own words; in order, probably, to preserve an
equality in the style. Since therefore the best and most faithful
historians have generally taken this liberty, we are to distinguish
between their accounts of facts and their speeches. In the former,
where nothing appears to the contrary, we are to suppose they adhere
to truth, according to the best information they could get; but
in the latter, that their views only to acquaint us with the cause
and springs of actions, which they chose to do in the form of speeches,
as a method most ornamental to the work, and entertaining to the
reader: though the best historians are cautious of inserting speeches,
but where they are very proper, and upon some solemn and weighty
occasions. Thucydides is said to have been the first who brought
complete and finished speeches into history, those of Herodotus
being but short and imperfect. And though Dionysius of Halicarnassus,
in his censure upon Thucydides, seems then to have disliked that
part of his conduct; yet he afterwards thought fit to imitate it
in his Antiquities of Rome, where we find many not only oblique,
but also direct speeches.

Lib. XXXVIII. c. 3.

Lib. II. c. 40. Ant. Rom. Lib. VIII. c. 46. In Coriolano.

See Voss. Ars. Hist. e. 20.

What has been said of speeches, may likewise
be understood of letters, which we sometimes meet with in histories:
as that of Alexander to Darius in Q. Curtius, those of Tiberius
and Drusus in Tacitus, and many others. Some letters are wholly
fictitious; and in others perhaps the historian represents the substance
of what was really said, but gives it his own dress. Thus we find
that the short letter of Lentulus to Catiline at the time of his
conspiracy differently related by Cicero and Sallust. The reason
of which seems to be this: that as Cicero recited it publicly to
the people of Rome in his third oration against Catiline, it is
reasonable to imagine he did it in the very words of the letter,
which we had by him; whereas Sallust, as an historian, might think
it sufficient to give the sense of it in his own words.

Lib. IV. c. I. Ann. Lib. I. 73. III. 56, 59.

IV. Digressions. These, if rightly
managed, afford the reader both delight and profit. Like speeches,
they should neither be too long nor frequent; lest they interrupt
the course of the history, and divert the reader from the main design
of the work. But now and then to introduce a beautiful description,
or some remarkable incident, which may give light to the subject,
is so far from an interruption, that it is rather a belief to the
reader, and excites him to go on with greater pleasure and attention.
See further on this head, Oratory, n° 37.

Art. III of Order.

89. Of order.

Since most histories consist of an introduction
and the body of the work, in each of which some order is requisite,
we shall speak to them separately.

1. The design of the introduction is the
same here as in orations. For the historian proposes three things
by his introduction, which may be called its parts: to give his
reader some general view of the subject, to engage his attention,
and to possess him with a candid opinion of himself and his performance.
Some have thought this last unnecessary for an historian. But if
we consider how differently mankind are apt to judge of the same
persons and actions, it seems as requisite for an historian to be
well esteemed as an orator. And therefore we find some of the best
historians have not omitted this part. Livys introduction
has been very much applauded by the learned, as a master-piece in
its kind. It begins with an account of his design. "Whether
(says he) it may answer any valuable end for me to write the history
of the Roman affairs from the beginning of the city, I neither am
certain, nor if I was should I venture to declare it." Soon
after he endeavours to prepare the readers attention, by representing
the grandeur and usefulness of the subject in the following words:
"Either I am prejudiced in favour of my subject, or there never
was any state greater, more virtuous, and fruitful of good examples,
or in which avarice and luxury had a later admittance, or poverty
and thriftiness were either more highly or longer esteemed, they
always coveting less the less they enjoyed." And then he presently
proceed to ingratiate himself with his readers, and gain their favourable
opinion: "Although my name is obscure in so great a number
of writers, yet it is a comfort that they cloud it by their fame
and character. But I shall gain this advantage by my labour, that
I shall be diverted for a time form the prospect of those evils
which the age has seen for so many years; while my mind is wholly
intent upon former times, free from all that care which gives the
writer an uneasiness, though it cannot [598] bias him against
the truth." In this passage we see he endeavours to gain the
good esteem of his readers from two very powerful motives, modesty
and a strict regard to truth. It may scarce seem necessary to observe,
that those introductions are esteemed the best which are most natural;
that is, such as are taken from the subject-matter of the history
itself, and closely connected with it. Such are those of Herodotus,
Thucydides, Livy, Tacitus, and others. And therefore Sallust is
greatly blamed by Quintilian on the account of his introductions,
which are so general, that they might suit other histories as well
as those to which they are prefixed. Introductions should likewise
be proportioned to the length of the work. We meet with some few
histories, in which the writers immediately enter upon their subject,
without any introduction; as Xenophon in his Expedition of the younger
Cyrus, and Cæsar in his Commentaries of the Gallic and Civil Wars.
But the latter does not profess to write a just history; and therefore
left himself more at liberty, as well in this respect as in some
others.

2. But order is principally to be regarded
in the body of the work. And this may be managed two ways; either
by attending to the time in a chronological series, or the different
nature and circumstances of the thing contained in the history.
However, as these two methods do not equally suit all subjects,
we shall a little consider to what kind of histories each of them
seems more properly adapted. All history then, as we have observed
already, may be reduced to three sorts; biography, the history
of particular states, and the general history of several
states existing at the same time.

In biography, or the lives of particular
persons, most writers follow the order of time; though some reduce
them to certain general heads, as their virtues and vices, or their
public and private character. Plutarch and Cornelius Nepos have
taken the former method, and Suetonius the latter.

As to the history of particular states,
the order of time is generally best, as being most natural and easy.
And therefore it has usually been observed by the best historians,
as Thucydides, Livy, and others. Tacitus, indeed, wrote two distinct
works; one of which he called Annals, and the other Histories.
And as in both he has kept to the order of time, critics have been
at a loss to assign any other reasons for these different titles,
unless that in the former work he confines himself more closely
to the facts themselves, and does not treat so largely upon the
causes, manner, or event of them, as he has done in the latter.
And even in the circumstances of facts, there is a certain order
proper to be observed, for rendering the account more plain and
intelligible. Thus, for instance, in the description of a battle
or siege, the time should first be known, then the chief person
or persons who conducted it, then the number of forces, and other
requisites, afterwards the nature of the place, then the action
itself, and lastly the event. But sometimes it is necessary to add
the time in which several of the other circumstances happened, especially
in actions of any considerable length. Where the order of these
circumstances is confuted, it perplexes the account, and renders
it both less entertaining to the reader, and more difficult to remember.

In a general history, the order of time cannot always be preserved;
though, where the actions of different communities have respect
to one as the principal, they should all, as far as possible, be
referred to the transactions of that state. But even here the several
affairs of those different states ought to be related separately,
which will necessarily occasion the anticipating some things, and
postponing others, so that they cannot all stand in the order of
time in which they were performed. However, Velleius Peterculus
says very justly with regard to this subject, "That every entire
action placed together in one view, is much better apprehended than
if divided by different times." In this case, therefore, for
better preserving the chronology, it is usual with historians, when
they have finished any particular narrative, in passing to the next,
to express the time by some short and plain transition: and sometimes
to apologize for themselves, by assigning the reasons of their conduct.
So Polybius, whose history is of this kind, says concerning himself:
"As in writing the actions of each year, in the order of time,
I endeavour to represent the affairs of the same nation together
in one summary view, it is plain that inconvenience must of course
attend this way of writing." Curtius professes only to write
the actions of Alexander king of Macedon; but his history contains
in it the principal affairs of the greatest states in the world
during that period. Now although, in the course of those transactions,
the war between Archelaus governor of Macedonia, and Agis king of
Sparta, happened before the battle of Alexander at Arbela; yet the
historian not only relates that battle first, but carries on the
account of Alexanders affairs in Asia to the death of Darius
without interruptions: for which he gives this reason: "If
I should relate the affairs of Alexander, which happened in the
mean time, either in Greece or Illyricum and Thrace, each in their
proper order and time, I must interrupt the affairs of Asia; which
it is much better to represent together in one continued series
as they fell out, to the flight and death of Darius." Such
anachronisms, therefore, are nothing more than what necessarily
arise sometimes from the nature of the subject: as every thing,
the more complex it is, and contains under it a great number of
parts, is more difficult to be digested in a regular order. But
in an history composed of several states, whose affairs are independent
of one another, the actions of each nation must necessarily be separated,
in order to represent them in a just view, and prevent confusion.
This is the method which Herodotus has taken, as likewise Diodorus
Siculus and Justin. Now both the pleasure and benefit which such
histories afford, arise from observing the conduct of each state
separately in the course of the affairs, and then comparing one
with the other. And as the order of time must frequently be interrupted,
it is not unusual to continue the chronology at proper distances
in relating the affairs of each nation; which preserves the unity
in the whole, and connects it in one consistent body.

Lib. V init.

The division of histories into books was
designed only for the better distinction of the subject and ease
of the reader. And the dividing these books again into chapters,
is rather a practice of later editors (founded, as they have thought,
on the same reasons), [599] than countenanced by the example
of ancient writers.

Art. IV Of Style.

90. Of style.

An historical style is said to be a middle
nature, between that of a poet and an orator, differing from both
not only in the ornamental parts, but likewise in the common idioms
and forms of expression.

De Clar. Orat. c. 75.

Cicero observes, that "nothing is more agreeable in history
than brevity of expression, joined with purity and perspicuity."
Purity indeed is not peculiar to history, but yet it is absolutely
necessary; for no one will ever think him fit to write and history
who is not master of the language in which he writes: and therefore
when Albinus had written an history of the Roman affairs in Greek,
and apologised for any slips or improprieties that might be found
in the language upon the account of his being a Roman, Cato called
him a trifler, for choosing to do that which, after he had done
it, he was obliged to ask pardon for doing. Nor is perspicuity less
requisite in an historical style. The nature of the subject plainly
directs to this. For as history consists principally in narration,
clearness and perspicuity is nowhere more necessary than in a relation
of facts. But these two properties are to be accompanied with brevity,
since nothing is more disagreeable than a long and tedious narrative.
And in this respect an historical style differs both from that of
poetry and oratory. For the poet frequently heightens and enlarges
his descriptions of facts, by dwelling upon every circumstance,
placing it in a different views, and embellishing it with the finest
ornaments of wit and language, to render his images more agreeable;
and the orator often does the like, with a design to strike the
passions. But such colouring is not the business of an historian,
who aims at nothing more than a just and faithful representation
of what he relates, in a way best suited to its nature, and in such
language as is most proper to set it in a plain and easy light.

Gell. Lib. XI. c. 8.

De Orat. lib. II c. 15, 20.

Again, Cicero, treating of an historical style, says: "It
ought to be fluent, smooth, and even, free from that harshness and
poignancy which is usual at the bar." The properties here mentioned
distinguish this style from that of judicial discourses, in which
the orator often finds it necessary to vary his manner of speaking,
in order to answer different views, either of pursuing an argument,
pressing an adversary, addressing a judge, or recommending the merits
of his cause. This occasions an inequality in his style, while he
speaks sometimes directly, at other times by way of question, and
intermixes short and concise expressions with round and flowing
periods. But the historian has not necessity for such variations
in his style. It is his province to espouse no party, to have neither
friend nor foe, but to appear wholly disinterested and indifferent
to all; and therefore his language should be smooth and equal in
his relations of persons and their actions.

Epist. ad Cn. Pompeium.

But further: Dyonisius makes "decency a principal virtue of
an historian;" which he explains by saying, that "he ought
to preserve the characters of the persons and dignity of the actions
of which he treats." And to do this it seems necessary that
an historical style should be animated with a good degree of life
and vigour; without which neither the characters of eminent persons,
nor their remarkable actions, which make up the main business of
history, can be duly represented: for even things in themselves
great and excellent, if related in a cold a lifeless manner, often
do not affect us in a degree suitable to their dignity and importance.
And this seems particularly necessary in speeches, in order to represent
what every one says, according to his different country, age, temper,
and station of life, in the same manner we may suppose he either
really did, or would have spoken himself on that occasion. Besides
there some scenes of action which require very pathetic and moving
language to represent them agreeably to their nature. And in descriptions,
the most beautiful tropes and lively figures are often necessary
to set the ideas of things in a proper light. From whence it appears,
that painting and imagery makes up no small part of the historian
province, though his colours are not so strong and glittering as
those either of the poet or orator. He ought therefore to be well
acquainted with the manners of men and the nature of the passions,
since he is often obliged to describe both: in the former of which
Herodotus excels, and Thucydides in the latter, as Dyonisius has
observed.

Now from these several properties laid
down by ancient writers, as requisite for an historical style, it
seems upon the whole to agree best with the middle character. And
this will further appear, by what they say relating to the ornamental
parts of style; namely, composition and dignity. As to the former
of these, which respects the structure of sentences, and the several
parts of them, Demetrius remarks, that "An historical period
ought neither to rise very high, nor sink very low, but to preserve
a medium." This simplicity (he says) "becomes the gravity
and credit of history; and distinguishes it form oratory on the
one hand, and dialogue on the other." His meaning is, that
historical periods should neither be so full and sonorous as is
frequent in oratory; nor yet so short and flat as in dialogue: the
former of which, as he says, require a strong voice to pronounce
them; and the latter have scarce the appearance of periods. So that,
according to this judicious writer, the periods best suited for
history are those which, being of a moderate length, will admit
of a just rise and cadency, and may be pronounced with ease. And
Dyonisius tells us, that "History should flow smooth and even,
every where consistent with itself, without roughness or chasms
in the sound." This relates to the harmony of periods, which
arises from such a position of the words as renders the sound pleasant
and agreeable, and as he thinks ought to be attended to in history.
And as to dignity, which respects the use of tropes and figures,
the same author says, that "History should be embellished with
such figures as are neither vehement nor carry in them the appearance
of art." This is agreeable to what Cicero observes, in comparing
Xenophon and Calisthenes, two Greek historians. "Xenophon the
Socratic (says he) was the first philosopher, and after him Calisthenes,
the scholar of Aristotle, who wrote an history: the latter almost
like a rhetorician: but the style of the former is more moderate,
and has not the force of an orator, less vehement perhaps, but in
my opinion more sweet, [600] and pleasant." The difference
between these two writers, with regard to their style, consisted
chiefly in the choice of their figures: which in Xenophon were more
gentle and moderate, and therefore in the judgement of Cicero more
agreeable to history. Now these several properties relating to the
ornaments of language, as well as those before mentioned, which
by ancient writers have been thought requisite for history, are
all suited to the middle style, as we have elsewhere shown at large.
See Oratory, n° 99-121.

De Orat. Lib. II. c. 14.

But notwithstanding this general account
of the several properties which constitute an historical style,
it admits of considerable varieties from the different nature and
dignity of the subject. "The lives of particular persons do
not require that strength and majesty of expression, nor all those
ornaments of language, as an history of the Roman empire. And accordingly
we find the style of Nepos and Suetonius very different from that
of Livy. The former is smooth and easy, scarce rising above the
low character; but the latter often approaches near to the sublime.
And other historians again have kept a medium between these. Upon
the whole, therefore, we may conclude, that the middle style is
the proper character for history; though historians may sometimes
sink into the low character, and at other times rise to the grandeur
and magnificence of the sublime, from the different nature of their
subject, or some particular parts of it. For that is to be esteemed
the proper character of any writing which in the general best suits
it. And this distinction may help us in some measure to reconcile
the sentiments of writers upon this head who seem to attribute different
characters to an historical style, or at least to judge where the
truth lies; since a variety of style is not only requisite in different
subjects, but likewise in different parts of the same work.